Which is what Happy Medic Justin Schorr scolded me that 2010 was. Or at least the hottest year of the past decade. Only it wasn’t. It seems that the fine scientists manipulated the data to make the year hotter than it seemed.
How BBC warmists abuse the science
The article is rather long and most of it is not about 2010 in particular. Read the entire article, but pay close attention to the last several paragraphs, which I’ll quote from here,
Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.
If you want to win this debate warministas, you can’t do it by adjusting the annual data up and down and tailoring it to support your position.
Well, apparently the Met Office thinks they can!
Met Office ‘kept winter forecast secret from public’
In October the forecaster privately warned the Government – with whom it has a contract – that Britain was likely to face an extremely cold winter.
It kept the prediction secret, however, after facing severe criticism over the accuracy of its long-term forecasts.
Here is what the Met Office said publicly in October 2010, but has apparently denied saying.
Met Office: memory or honesty deficiency?
The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.
The eastern half of England, Cornwall, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in for temperatures above the 3.7C (38.6F) average, more than 2C warmer than last winter.
The map also shows a 40 per cent to 60 per cent probability that western England and Wales will be warmer than 3.7C (38.6F), with a much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures.
Speaking of which. Remember last year when scientists shrilled that all of the ice in the Himalayas was going to melt in 35 years and we are all going to DIE, DIE, DIE! ? Turns out that’s now quite the case,
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.
The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.
Unchecked research? That’s not research, it’s anecdote. Or maybe wishful thinking because it supports the warminista alarmist position. As Rogue Medic reminds us, the plural of anecdote is not data. Nor is the plural of lie.
As always, if you want the latest scoop on Global Warming, Cooling Climate Change, visit my friend Borepatch. He follows this much more closely than I do, is much smarter than I am, and is in fact a scientific kind of guy.
I’ll once again ask the rhetorical question; If these guys can’t predict the weather over the next 48 hours, how are we supposed to believe that they can tell us what’s going to happen over the next 50 years?
Indeed I stated that 2010 tied 2005 for warmest on record. It seems I was off by 2 years. My apologies. 2010 was not the warmest on record, but tied for warmest with 2003, even with numbers adjusted.
Indeed they have trouble predicting the weather 48 hours in advance, but with 4 of the warmest years on record in the last 13, is this just a cycle? Where is the science on the other side of this argument other than “It’s snowing in winter.”
I am not a sky is falling climate change alarmist, but I can see trends in my own communities and the “natural shift” is off.
Apologies for my mis-statement, 2005 should have read 2003.
“If you want to win this debate warministas, you can’t do it by adjusting the annual data up and down and tailoring it to support your position.” I’d ask anyone using the “2/3 of people disapprove of Obamacare” to apply the same standard.
It seems too many distort information to their advantage. What is it they say “Numbers lie and liars use numbers?”
Thanks for the link to the articles.
Uh, exactly where does it say that 2005 or 2003 were the warmest years on record? I’ve never seen that other than in the same publications that claimed that 2010 was the warmest year on record. Global temperatures have been declining since 1998. No one is sure what causes climate change, although one strong theory is that it is related to solar activity. We are at a low in sunspot activity and global temperatures are falling. If you haven’t look up the Maunder, Dalter, and Sporer Minimums. In all three, sunspot activity was down, as it is now. In all three, the planet had colder temperatures and more snow than other periods.
If you can see the trends, then what you are seeing is weather, not climate. Climate change takes decades, if not centuries to occur. A warmer or colder year or two is not an indicator of a trend, it indicates a limited variation in weather. 1995 was a particularly snowy winter around here, the winters when I was a kid were also snowier. Other years were warmer in about 1998 I was able to go running on New Years Day in shorts and a T shirt because it was almost 60 degrees.
The point is that all of this hysteria is driven by politics not science. It’s not about weather, it’s not about the environment, it’s about control.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr. Sarah Jensen, Chronicles of EMS. Chronicles of EMS said: The Hottest Year (N)EVAH!!!!!! http://bit.ly/gtJXzV Via @EMSblogs #CoEMS […]
Justin, we have absolutely no idea how warm 2010 was, because it’s a dead-on certainty that CRU/GISS/HCN will adjust the 2010 data in a year or two, just like they have done for all the previous years.
Follow the links. They adjust the data down, but not until they send out the press release about HOTTEST EVAH!!!1!!
There’s a terrible problem with data quality (read the HARRY_README.TXT file). There’s a terrible problem with “adjustments” to the data made in an opaque manner. GISS seems to change every other week, so it seems impossible to run it twice in a row and get the same results.
As they used to say in the USSR, “In Soviet Russia, future is always known. Is past that always changes.”
You can’t hope for reproduceability under these conditions, and without reproduceability, you can’t have falsifiability. Without that, it’s not scientific.
Quite simply, the data cannot be relied on to show warming, cooling, or remaining the same. It’s scandalous.
I’m not EVEN getting into this one…
The way I see it, if it wasn’t for “global warming,” We’d still be in an Ice Age. Somehow the planet manged to melt itself of more snow and ice than we could possibly imagine without any human intervention whatsoever. But I’m supposed to believe that a 1 degree increase in 100 years means The End of Days if I don’t buy a Prius and install mercury light bulbs in my house?